Gay and Mormon: BYU hosted panel for gay BYU students

[UtahDan]

Signed, polygamy.

The best example of dropping fundamental teachings is Adam-god doctrine.

[Non Sequitur]

The best example of dropping fundamental teachings is Adam-god doctrine.

I think Blood Atonement has that beat.

[Top Ute]

Signed, polygamy.

Boom, roasted

[lambdacoug]

Maybe this one would be personally harder to swallow because it is my era. Even polygamy is easier to explain in terms in both a doctrinal and historical context. I

You're a hoot.

[Maximus]

Signed, polygamy.

Polygamy has been sanctioned before and the BofM makes it clear when it would be sanctioned. The two arent comparable.

[UtahDan]

The image is interesting, but what I really want to know is what the hell is going on in Texas?

[Solon]

what this event symbolizes is a big deal for us as an LDS people and culture. Change is occurring from the bottom up.

I thought a lot about this line of JL's over the weekend, and earlier today I went back and re-read through Pelagius' informal model of doctrine thread.

I find the idea that change is upwelling from grass roots compelling and praiseworthy. However, I judge grass-roots activism as a vehicle of change to be ultimately at odds with the organization and revealed administrative processes of the church. Despite the practical processes that pelagius lays out, the model still requires doctrinal-genesis from the highest authorities.

I think the highest levels of church authority have been pretty clear on where they stand on this issue, whether it's Hafen's "not in your DNA" talk or Packer's redacted "Why would God do this to someone?" GC address.. While the changes (and their reasons) to Packer's talk represent a shift in the dialogue to behavior-based, rather than intention-based notions of homosexual "sin" (a change reflected in the byu's policy towards homosexual students), the impossibility of defending this stance with more than a "we don't know" is growing more and more evident. We see this as the argument shifts to semantics (gay vs. SSA; tendencies vs. temptations) intended to excuse a loving God from making people gay. With pelagius' model in mind, a "we don't know" is a tough directive to doctrinalize.

(Aside: this is also where the church's position on black-priesthood-bans has ended up; we don't know where it came from, but we do know that God loves everyone. The main difference is that the priesthood ban is over.)

In this regard, the impetus for change (if, indeed, that's what we're seeing; I'm not yet convinced) is not coming from the top, but from rank-and-file members. Judging from the past, I suppose if enough members jump on board this bandwagon it can't really be called apostasy, since doctrine will be modified to conform to the shifted norm. But it's also not exactly the model for "continuing revelation" that the church holds to.

[Katy Lied]

I'm late to jump in here, but how about grass roots upwelling as a contributor to agenda power? If God is seen as loving and inclusive, as many on here believe, and repression of gays is the result of aged conservative men in power, then just placing the gay question on the agenda would allow the Q12 to pray and meditate about it. It paves the way for them to receive revelation from God that gay is okay. Wasnt this the way the ban on priesthood for blacks question went down? HBL blocked consideration for a long time, but when it finally came up, things changed.

Maybe bottom up pressure contributes to getting the question on the agenda. Agenda power is a precious thing.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I thought a lot about this line of JL's over the weekend, and earlier today I went back and re-read through Pelagius' informal model of doctrine thread.

I find the idea that change is upwelling from grass roots compelling and praiseworthy. However, I judge grass-roots activism as a vehicle of change to be ultimately at odds with the organization and revealed administrative processes of the church. Despite the practical processes that pelagius lays out, the model still requires doctrinal-genesis from the highest authorities.

I think the highest levels of church authority have been pretty clear on where they stand on this issue, whether it's Hafen's "not in your DNA" talk or Packer's redacted "Why would God do this to someone?" GC address.. While the changes (and their reasons) to Packer's talk represent a shift in the dialogue to behavior-based, rather than intention-based notions of homosexual "sin" (a change reflected in the byu's policy towards homosexual students), the impossibility of defending this stance with more than a "we don't know" is growing more and more evident. We see this as the argument shifts to semantics (gay vs. SSA; tendencies vs. temptations) intended to excuse a loving God from making people gay. With pelagius' model in mind, a "we don't know" is a tough directive to doctrinalize.

(Aside: this is also where the church's position on black-priesthood-bans has ended up; we don't know where it came from, but we do know that God loves everyone. The main difference is that the priesthood ban is over.)

In this regard, the impetus for change (if, indeed, that's what we're seeing; I'm not yet convinced) is not coming from the top, but from rank-and-file members. Judging from the past, I suppose if enough members jump on board this bandwagon it can't really be called apostasy, since doctrine will be modified to conform to the shifted norm. But it's also not exactly the model for "continuing revelation" that the church holds to.

Very interesting thoughts, Solon.

I was listening to podcast this morning by Greg Prince:

http://mormonstories.org/295-297-201...h-greg-prince/

and he made a point during the Q/A session that change in the church almost always comes from the bottom up. The topic of his talk is "Big Tent Mormonism" and I think he articulates a vision for faithful agitation for change better than anyone I know. In the talk, he outlines a fascinating history of doctrinal development in the church (prophet by prophet). IMO, he is one of the most brilliant minds in the church and I could never grow tired of listening to him. Highly recommended.

As you probably know, he is the author of the DOM bio and a groundbreaking earlier work on LDS priesthood and is on the editorial board of Dialog.

[UtahDan]

Prince is brilliant. Fantasy debate: Greg Prince versus Paul Tuscano.

[Jacob]

The image is interesting, but what I really want to know is what the hell is going on in Texas?

Hmm. Why is gay marriage here being compared to marriage between cousins? The only thing I can think of is that society at large finds them both icky.

So, is the logic of the poster that since icky cousin marriage is allowed in many state, gay marriage should also be allowed--it being no less icky?

Not very convincing, I must say.

[creekster]

Hmm. Why is gay marriage here being compared to marriage between cousins? The only thing I can think of is that society at large finds them both icky.

So, is the logic of the poster that since icky cousin marriage is allowed in many state, gay marriage should also be allowed--it being no less icky?

Not very convincing, I must say.

Maybe they just want gay cousins who want to marry to know that New England is the place they need to be.

[UtahDan]

Hmm. Why is gay marriage here being compared to marriage between cousins? The only thing I can think of is that society at large finds them both icky.

So, is the logic of the poster that since icky cousin marriage is allowed in many state, gay marriage should also be allowed--it being no less icky?

Not very convincing, I must say.

Answer my question and I will answer yours.

[Moliere]

The image is interesting, but what I really want to know is what the hell is going on in Texas?

Come here and find out.....if you dare

[UtahDan]

Come here and find out.....if you dare

I would love to. A Redskins Cowboys game at Texas Stadium is on my bucket list.